• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Discussing Homicide - muder - actus reus.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

HOMICIDE 1. MURDER - ACTUS REUS The definition of murder is derived from the writing of the jurist Sir Edward Coke: 'Murder is when a [person]...unlawfully killeth...any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the Queen's peace, with malice aforethought...'. A bit of a mouthful, you may think! Anyway, let's look at actus reus of the wording - essentially, the unlawful killing of a human being - in a little detail. The word 'unlawfully' can be taken to exclude killings for which the accused has a complete and valid justification, such as killing in self-defence or in wartime. 'Killeth' or 'kills' means 'causes the death of', and I shall deal with causation soon. For the moment, take on board that murder is also a result crime and in accordance with the rule laid down by the House of Lords in R v MILLER [1983] 1 All ER 978 - HL (the cigarette that caused the fire) there is a duty to act in the face of a danger one has created oneself. 'Any reasonable creature in rerum natura' can be safely shortened to 'any human being'. This therefore excludes any 'baby' in a womb, so if death is caused before the child has an existence independent of its mother, there can be no murder. This is now settled law following the House of Lords' decision in ATTORNEY-GENERAL's REFERENCE (No. 3 of 1994) [1998] AC 245 HL. This leaves us with the question of what happens if a baby is born and later dies because of an attack on its mother by the defendant whilst in the womb. ...read more.

Middle

Their actions did not break the chain because they were reasonable acts of self preservation or defence and/or because they were analogous to involuntary acts done in performance of a legal duty; and that, since shooting back at the defendant was a natural consequence of his having shot first, he remained responsible. I must confess that I find it difficult to see why the police response was a natural one foreseeable as likely to happen in the ordinary course of events or why it was a reasonable act of self preservation: the police could have withdrawn, surely? Clearly, the decision not to prosecute the police was a policy decision. The second exception to the rule is that if the defendant's conduct is not the operative cause of death but an abnormality in the victim is, then the defendant has committed the actus reus. So, if I chase you down the street and, due to a heart condition, you have a heart attack and die, then I have killed you. You see, the courts have always held that a defendant must take a victim subject to his physical and mental condition. In tort, this is known as the 'egg shell skull' principle. In short, a defendant must always take a victim as he finds him. A case that you may find astonishing here, is R v BLAUE (1975) 1 WLR 1411 - CA. The defendant had stabbed the victim 13 times, and she was rushed to hospital where doctors diagnosed a blood transfusion as being the only way to save her. The victim, a Jehovah's Witness, refused and consequently died. ...read more.

Conclusion

Thinking the victim was dead, the defendants then rolled him over a cliff to fake an accident. The victim was alive when rolled over the cliff and died later from exposure. The defendants were found guilty of murder. So, what do we make of this case? Well, it seems that if death is caused during a series of acts as part of a pre-conceived plan, then the earlier mens rea is sufficient for a conviction. Inevitably, then, what if there is no earlier pre-conceived plan? It appears that the approach will be the same where the conduct which causes death was either undertaken in order to conceal the earlier conduct which was accompanied by mens rea; or where it is part of the same transaction, like FAGAN. You can see this in another 'disposal' case, R v LE BRUN (1991) 4 AER 673 - CA, where the defendant was found guilty when his conduct caused the death of his wife despite the fact that he lacked mens rea at the time that he killed her. He was guilty because, when he had hit her earlier, he had had mens rea and the act that caused her death was done in order to conceal his assault on her. OK, folks, well that is murder. However, if you're in a mood for some in depth thought about murder in the context of doctors going around wards injecting terminally ill patients with overdoses of pain relieving drugs in order to put them out of their misery (thereby creating extra bed space!), then read the article 'Summing up intention' NLJ August by Simon Cooper - it makes grim and thought provoking reading. In the next lecture we'll take a peek at manslaughter. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Tort section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Tort essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Homicide Act 1957

    3 star(s)

    In the case of R v. Fenton it was first established that drink does not give rise to an abnormality of the mind due to inherent causes. The court of Appeal in R v. Gittens and R v. Atkinson showed that the jury should concentrate on asking whether the D would have killed as he did

  2. The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

    This somewhat unusual case in which a man drove onto a police constables foot by accident and the refused to move off once he realised the accident illustrates the difficulties in establishing the temporal coincidence of actus reus and mens rea.

  1. Any crime in law is made up of two elements, the actus reus which ...

    The actus reus of assault is the apprehension of immediate unlawful violence. The mens rea of assault is the intention to put the victim in fear of immediate unlawful physical harm or subjective recklessness as to whether they would fear immediate unlawful physical harm.

  2. Briefly Explain The Meaning Of These Terms: Actus Reus And Mens Rea

    In the case of Shepherd and Hancock, two miners pushed a block of concrete off a bridge through the windscreen of a taxi, this led to the driver being killed and the miners were convicted of murder because they could have foreseen the consequences.

  1. UNIT3 ASSIGNMENT4 LAW OF TORT

    whom the duty is owed does not suffer injury on the premises by reason of the danger concerned. TRESPASS TO LAND. James and malcolm Trespass to land is the 'Direct interference with the possession of another person's land without lawful authority'.

  2. Involuntary Manslaughter

    However this was abolished, making it fairer to the defendant. However, it could also be said that this is unfair on the victim, as any reasonable man may have seen a risk, yet if the defendant did not, he will not be found guilty.

  1. Three liability cases - Claim 1-- Auto Emergency Breakdown Service Claim 2- Santa ...

    Types of harm In the majority of employers' liability cases, the harm complained of will be some kind of physical injury or illness and it is clear that employers have a duty to take precautions to prevent this.

  2. In this report, the differences between contractual liability and tortuous liability are explained. In ...

    Scenario analysis Anthony vs Maria The fact: Anthony ran a fish restaurant. One day, he switched on his fish-fryers in order to warm the oil but he fell asleep. The oil in the fryers overheated and burst into flames.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work